|
As to the SBVT, you repeat the lies spread in the wake of the loss by the clinton people. One key argument for hrc was that Clintons are the only ones to fight back. To do this, they re-wrote history - which was fine with a media that did not do their job in 2004. The fact is that Edwards proudly speaks of not using the campaign slogan using his similar one instead - leading to criticism of the campaign on not having a consistent message. He did NOT even try to do anything a VP usually does and several surrogates were better than he was. He repeated the SAME speech - down to planned gestures - day after day.
Here is what Kerry did on the SBVT - with a fair media the SBVT would have backfired big time:
Kerry gave the press the information - over 100 pages of naval records - to counter it in April and they were all up on his web site. (In fact, they were useful to people on the Kerry blog to end the argument on the color of his eyes - hazel) Clinton's aim in 1992 was to counter in the news cycle any claim with something. Here the Media had proof that they were lying - this goes BEYOND Clinton's having a "response". The media did not do the job they would have done even 4 years before.
When this became evident, Kerry and his team did try to counter it. It was an unprecedented attack - a book with hundreds of charges all in contradiction of the official records and no proof - and the media asked for none. Then as lies were proven to be lies, the media did not make the assumption that it discredited the source - they went to the next lie. Clearly, neither the official records or identifying a very significant number of charges to be lies worked. So, what could be done. I really think the only thing that would have worked required the Democratic party to stand behind the man who was their standard bearer - just as they had with every previous candidate. They pure and simple failed to do this. They could have picked their battles. The purple heart band aids would have been one of the best - as it really did step over the line. It could have HONESTLY hit a Republican strength, the perception that they supported the military.
Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops. They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.
Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.
What is infuriating is that Kerry as a 25 year old, who was extremely athletic and fit, suffered these wounds, well aware that but for luck the angle could have been worse, his hearing was damaged and he has had nightmares years later. Yet these bastards implied he was barely in battle. Where were McAuliffe and the rest of the Democrats?
Kerry had every reason to be proud for having been tested and shown to be willing to risk his own life rather than not help a man who almost certainly would have died. For his other medal, he used his intelligence and solicited information from anyone in previous ambushes, worked out and sold to 2 of his peers a way to avoid these ambushes that the swiftboats were exposed to, then had the guts to implement it and came out of an ambush with no one in any of the 3 boats killed. This was what these people couldn't defend?
They had the Navy records and a tape where they could hear that Nixon investigated him 2 years later (when events were recent) - and found he was a war hero. Those two things alone should have been more than enough. What's weird is the RW still won't believe it. What I suspect is that among the high level of the party elite you have as many chicken hawks (or chicken doves) as the Republicans do and the vast majority of them were too cool to honor someone who consistently did the right thing and had a nobility of character they lacked.
Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.
The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)
Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion. In fact, their lack of support likely raised questions of whether the Democratic leaders were concerned the charges were true. Kerry deserved better.
It might be that the goal was to make Kerry's hero status questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why slam Edwards? You slam Kerry here far more than I slammed Edwards and the Edwards people were slamming Kerry across the board yesterday. Do you think a good VP uses his own slogan?
As to the $87 billion question - Kerry gave the full answer just minutes before. The media played dumb in not understanding it. Kerry said nothing that, in context, was wrong or a problem. The problem was that the segment was taken out of context and misused. Had Edwards been the nominee, many Edwards words would have been spun - just as Kerry's were. If Edwards were better, he would have won the 2004 nomination. He had better press than Kerry and the states of the first multistate day were perfect for someone of his background. Imagine that he won not just SC, but SC, OK, DE, MO, and ND - all states where a rural, southern populist should do better than a MA Senator. If he also did well (or won) NM and AZ - he would have been the frontrunner and Kerry's victory in neighboring NH would have been downplayed and Iowa would have been reconsidered as the start of the Edwards' ascent.
As to hunting, Kerry is a hunter - Edwards isn't. Also, there never was anything inherently wrong with windsurfing - it is an athletic sport and if a media favorite, as Edwards in 2004, did it, the media would have handled it as a positive.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
